OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dual treatment (pegylated interferon α and ribavirin [PEG-INF/RBV]) for Hepatitis C virus chronic infection against two triple treatments with boceprevir (PEG-INF/RBV/BOC) and telaprevir (PEG-INF/RBV/TVR). METHODS: We developed a Markov model from the perspective of the Peruvian Ministry of Health. We considered a 10 year time horizon, one-year Markov cycles, a 3% discount rate and quality adjusted life years as a measure of effectiveness. Costs were calculated in 2015 Peruvian Soles (S/.) and converted to U.S. Dollars (US$). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To assess model uncertainty, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate individual cost drivers and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. We considered a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold equal to the annual Peruvian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per-capita (US$ 6 660). We calculated the net monetary benefit (NMB) considering a WTP range between zero and three times GDP per-capita. We used TreeAge 2015. RESULTS: Both triple treatments are more effective and more expensive than the dual treatment. Compared to dual treatment, PEG-INF/RBV/TVR had an ICER of S/. 101 052 (US$ 29 634) and PEG-INF/RBV/BOC had an ICER of S/. 136 072 (US$ 39 904). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that payers would need to be willing to pay more than the annual GDP per-capita for both triple treatments, in 89% of the simulations for PEG-INF/RBV/TVR and 96% of the simulations in PEG-INF/RBV/BOC when compared to PEG-INF/RBV. The one-way sensitivity analysis detected no highly influential variables in the model. The NMB was higher for PEG-INF/RBV across ranges of WTP.   CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more effective than dual treatment, the high cost of both triple treatments limit public access to them. At a WTP threshold of GDP per-capita, the triple treatments would not be a cost-effective investment for the Peruvian Ministry of Health compared to double treatment.